3 ms·

Does a comment like this actually contribute to anything? I don't want to be mean, but this is a comment that would probably be more appropriate on Reddit or 4c

Does a comment like this actually contribute to anything? I don't want to be mean, but this is a comment that would probably be more appropriate on Reddit or 4chan. That said, a fatalistic viewpoint is valid enough philosophy, but I am still in the camp of "even if I don't like them very much, the unvaccinated are still humans and we should still try and minimize how many of them get sick." NOTE: I'm vaccinated and boosted, and wouldn't have a problem getting another booster if the WHO or CDC recommends it.

dekhn 5y ago
It's not a fatalistic viewpoint and it does contribute. This disease will always be with us and the sooner we find a way to return to semi-normalcy rahter than osciallting around every time a new variant with different properties shows up, the better.
- tombert 5y ago
  > it does contribute. It really didn't. It reads like something I'd see in a JPG compressed meme you'd see on /r/forwardsFromGrandma. Are you saying that we shouldn't do anything if we see a new variant? > This disease will always be with us That sounds fatalistic to me, at least with the more colloquial use of the word. To be clear, I don't necessarily think you're wrong. It's a valid viewpoint, and I think it's not unreasonable to say "the sooner we find a way to return to semi-normalcy rahter than osciallting around every time a new variant with different properties shows up, the better."
  - dekhn 5y ago
    It contributes in the sense that we comment here to manipulate the opinions of others, and at this point, the best and most important message to communicate is "this isn't going away no matter how much we science it, so we better start planning for the endemic nature". As for fatalism about a virus- I grew up during HIV/AIDS. It's still here (I went into biology and got a PhD and almost became a professor to work on anti-HIV drugs). Is it fatalistic for us to assume HIV will be with us even though we know how to completely abolish transmission, but people still do things that lead to transmission? best to be realistic about the future and plan for it than hope vaccines are going to magically solve problems for us.
    - tombert 5y ago
      > As for fatalism about a virus- I grew up during HIV/AIDS. It's still here (I went into biology and got a PhD and almost became a professor to work on anti-HIV drugs). Is it fatalistic for us to assume HIV will be with us even though we know how to completely abolish transmission, but people still do things that lead to transmission? I don't know anything about the specifics of HIV so I cannot speak to it, but we have eradicated one virus completely (barring some frozen samples in labs): smallpox. Obviously it's an apples to orange comparison since smallpox isn't nearly as transmissible as COVID, but my point is that I'm sure that there were people in 1900 that said "we will never get rid of smallpox".
      - dekhn 5y ago
        yes, that's true, we have eliminated smallpox. I don't think that's in any way some sort of evidence that vaccines are generally successful at eliminating diseases. I think what we've seen is that there is likely no chance that even 100% vaccination would have permanently eliminated the disease, and total lockdowns aren't super-effective either, given their heavy societal costs.
btheshoe 5y ago
It's short and curt, but it seems to present some good ideas that can be discussed. If COVID is endemic, then it seems mostly pointless to continue COVID restrictions indefinitely. I've never bought the "we need COVID restrictions to protect unvaccinated people" argument - being vaccinated should protect them enough, and unvaccinated people (who won't be following restrictions) present a much greater threat to each other.
CoastalCoder 5y ago
I think the parent comment is relevant to the extent that controlling spread is a consensus problem. E.g., if I knew that a variant will be endemic unless 90% of a community follows certain practices, but 40% state they won't comply, that matters. If nothing else, it makes it seem pointless for me to bother wearing a mask for others' protection.

dekhn 5y ago

It's not a fatalistic viewpoint and it does contribute. This disease will always be with us and the sooner we find a way to return to semi-normalcy rahter than osciallting around every time a new variant with different properties shows up, the better.

tombert 5y ago
> it does contribute. It really didn't. It reads like something I'd see in a JPG compressed meme you'd see on /r/forwardsFromGrandma. Are you saying that we shouldn't do anything if we see a new variant? > This disease will always be with us That sounds fatalistic to me, at least with the more colloquial use of the word. To be clear, I don't necessarily think you're wrong. It's a valid viewpoint, and I think it's not unreasonable to say "the sooner we find a way to return to semi-normalcy rahter than osciallting around every time a new variant with different properties shows up, the better."
- dekhn 5y ago
  It contributes in the sense that we comment here to manipulate the opinions of others, and at this point, the best and most important message to communicate is "this isn't going away no matter how much we science it, so we better start planning for the endemic nature". As for fatalism about a virus- I grew up during HIV/AIDS. It's still here (I went into biology and got a PhD and almost became a professor to work on anti-HIV drugs). Is it fatalistic for us to assume HIV will be with us even though we know how to completely abolish transmission, but people still do things that lead to transmission? best to be realistic about the future and plan for it than hope vaccines are going to magically solve problems for us.
  - tombert 5y ago
    > As for fatalism about a virus- I grew up during HIV/AIDS. It's still here (I went into biology and got a PhD and almost became a professor to work on anti-HIV drugs). Is it fatalistic for us to assume HIV will be with us even though we know how to completely abolish transmission, but people still do things that lead to transmission? I don't know anything about the specifics of HIV so I cannot speak to it, but we have eradicated one virus completely (barring some frozen samples in labs): smallpox. Obviously it's an apples to orange comparison since smallpox isn't nearly as transmissible as COVID, but my point is that I'm sure that there were people in 1900 that said "we will never get rid of smallpox".
    - dekhn 5y ago
      yes, that's true, we have eliminated smallpox. I don't think that's in any way some sort of evidence that vaccines are generally successful at eliminating diseases. I think what we've seen is that there is likely no chance that even 100% vaccination would have permanently eliminated the disease, and total lockdowns aren't super-effective either, given their heavy societal costs.

btheshoe 5y ago

It's short and curt, but it seems to present some good ideas that can be discussed. If COVID is endemic, then it seems mostly pointless to continue COVID restrictions indefinitely. I've never bought the "we need COVID restrictions to protect unvaccinated people" argument - being vaccinated should protect them enough, and unvaccinated people (who won't be following restrictions) present a much greater threat to each other.

CoastalCoder 5y ago

I think the parent comment is relevant to the extent that controlling spread is a consensus problem. E.g., if I knew that a variant will be endemic unless 90% of a community follows certain practices, but 40% state they won't comply, that matters. If nothing else, it makes it seem pointless for me to bother wearing a mask for others' protection.